Re: License landscape (and question of best pratice)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 15:26 +0000, Jose' Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 March 2006 14:46, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > I'd say, include DESCRIPTION as %doc, and keep License: as simple as
> > possible.
> 
>   But then we are duplicating that file, since R BUILD command also installs 
> it.
> 
>   On the other hand that is a very _descriptive_ file. ;-)
> 
>   I noticed before that you do the same in your R packages. So we could adopt 
> this as the standard practice for R packages. Does this looks like a deal? ;)

Sounds like a good idea. :)

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux